Monday, March 26, 2012

Lately we’re hearing a lot about the legally disenfranchised in America in the context of the Trayon case. But it’s not Blacks who are on the lower rung of a two tiered justice system in America.

According to liberals there are two classes of Americans; liberals, including their supporters, and the lower class. Like other historical aristocracies liberals believe in one set of laws for themselves and another for the hoi polloi.

The concept of a dual track system of law has been around for awhile in liberal circles; think of FDRs court packing scheme. However it didn’t enjoy real success until the 1960’s.

Liberals laid the foundation for their coup by changing the definition of what the law is. Historically the law was a written representation of a concept. Liberals changed the law to a bunch of words which can be interpreted in different ways, ways totally alien to the intention of those who voted for a given law.

For example the First Amendment protection of free speech was a written representation of the idea that people should be able to express their opinions without being persecuted by the government. Clearly the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to protect pornography, which is hardly an opinion, because they and every court for over 170 years found laws against pornography to be quite consistent with the Constitution.

But if the First Amendment is viewed as words torn from the mooring of the intent of those who ratified the Constitution then it can be interpreted in many ways, so as to protect pornography for example. This is convenient because it means that all that is necessary to create new laws is to get a majority in the Supreme Court.

Once liberals converted the law from something with a fixed meaning to just words liberal judges could effectively create new laws by interpreting those words in unique and fanciful ways.

The first major example of this legislation by interpretation was based on civil rights laws. The vast majority of Americans agree that civil rights laws designed to prevent discrimination on the basis of race are a good thing.

However liberals are capable of turning even the nicest thing to evil ends, witness liberal Christians who claim that Christianity really supports the elimination of religious liberty in the HHS mandate, so it’s not shocking that civil rights laws are being used to discriminate on the basis of race.

When a Black American, or a member of any other group with the liberal seal of approval, is attacked the people who did the crime are subject to prosecution through the same process used when Asians or Whites are attacked. But if the crooks get off the Federal government will step in and try them again because when a Black is attacked his or her civil rights are violated.

When a Black gang attacks a Korean you won’t find the Federal government stepping in to defend the victims civil rights. Blacks apparently have more civil rights than other Americans.

This is an example of the dual track. Blacks, LGBTs etc get two chances at justice while those not favored by liberals only get one.

When Americans didn’t rise up in arms about liberals first foray into dual track school of jurisprudence liberals turned the civil rights laws to the purpose of governmentally sanctioned racism. Liberals publicly declared that it was not only necessary but good to discriminate against whites, solely on the basis of their race, in order to make up for offenses against Blacks in the past.

It wasn’t necessary for the Whites, and Asians, who were to be discriminated against to have ever committed a discriminatory act or to have even harbored a racist thought. The pallor of their skin qualified them for legal oppression. To liberals two wrongs do make a right; a right for special privileges for Blacks in employment and college admittance.

The dual track system also insulates liberal supporters from the impacts of liberal policies. Liberals created a monster by tilting the legal process so far in favor of criminals that crime began to grow rampant. Liberals themselves, living either in rich neighborhoods or colleges with their own police forces, generally weren’t impacted. Sadly many liberal support groups such as Blacks, LGBT folk, and Jews were.

A reasonable person would have fixed the problem by removing some of the insane rules that favored crooks, like throwing out physical evidence because some arcane rule was not properly followed, so that criminals would end up in jail and innocent folks, of all races and sexual orientations, would be safe.

Instead liberals came up with the hate crime. On the surface the reasoning is not totally irrational. After all a Nazi killing a Jew has more significant societal impacts, although the impact on the victim is obviously the same, than the case where a neighbor kills a Jew because the Jew’s dog made too much noise. Of course addressing the virulent sort of hate that can adversely impact society was not the real intent of hate crime laws.

This is obvious because when Black gangs attack Koreans or Whites the phrase “hate crime” is never to be found. Only when someone attacks a person on the official liberal victims list--Blacks, LGBT, illegal aliens, Hispanics some times-- do hate crimes come into play.

This is the second example of the dual track. Attacks on members of groups sanctioned by liberals are upgraded to “hate crimes” as necessary, unless the attacker also belongs to a protected group . That classification ups the ante and effectively returns the prosecution of criminals back to a level comparable to that found prior to the liberal unbalancing of the legal system. Sadly Americans did not rise up to protest this second phase in the liberals shadow legal system. Probably because most Americans find the sort of beliefs that “hate crimes” are supposed to punish, such as racism, to be odious.

Feeling empowered by the public's acquiescence to “hate crimes” liberals decided that politicians and government officials had the right to decide what laws they would enforce. This has popped up recently in a number of cases:

1) President Obama refusing to defend the Defense of Marriage Act

2) Two Governors and two Attorney Generals in California refusing to defend the peoples vote on Prop 8

3)The Justice Department decided that Blacks with baseball bats in front of a polling place were not really a problem--even though a court had ruled otherwise

4) The decision by the LA Police Department to not enforce a law they have decided discriminates against illegal aliens.

In all of these cases Democrats, and one Republican, have determined that it is unnecessary for the courts to decide what laws are legal or illegal. Instead politicians can simply pick and chose what laws to obey. In the voter intimidation case the Obama Administration even decided it could ignore a court ruling.

Ignoring laws is a privilege that is reserved for the cultural elites; the new liberal aristocracy. That’s why blockading a military recruiting office won’t get you in trouble but trying to hand a pro-life pamphlet to a women entering an abortion mill will land you in jail. In the dual track system of law the First Amendment is very sensitive to the content of your speech.

Liberals have arrogated to themselves the power to be above any law that they determine to be flawed. Unlike the lower class liberals don’t have to bother to fight long drawn out legal battles in order to effect change. Nor do they have to pass unpopular laws, or change popular ones, that might keep them from getting reelected. They merely need to win an election and then ignore the laws they don’t like.

The Obama administration has also put forth the concept of a new process for producing laws that impact the lower class. Liberals have championed the use of the Federal bureaucracy to create laws outside of the standard Constitutional process.

In declaring that politicians can ignore laws they don’t like and that unelected bureaucrats can make new laws liberals have taken America away from being a country of laws and onto the threshold of totalitarianism. The brave new liberal America is a country of men not laws. The powerful need not be hindered by laws and what laws are created must be approved of by the powerful.

That’s why the same liberals who condemned Nixon could, with a straight face, defend Clinton even though he was convicted of perjury. It didn’t matter what Clinton did; he was one of the aristocrats and was therefore above the laws that apply to non-liberals.

The liberal dual track approach to the law is much like the system in Iran where the Mullahs allow “Democracy” but retain the right to select which laws are allowed.

Liberals have effectively placed all non-liberals in a legal ghetto with special laws that apply only to non-liberals. A ghetto where liberals get to define all the rules with little or no effort while non-liberals are constrained to the resource intensive approaches, such as amending the Constitution, to reverse liberal fiats.

If Americans do not take a stand now and demand that all Americans should be equal in the eyes of the law we will soon have precious little freedom left; freedom will be reserved for the new aristocracy. Even worse the Civil War should have taught us that a Republic cannot persevere when there are two classes of citizens.

Success by the liberals in their endeavor will have devastating long term impacts on America for a county where the majority is oppressed is not a country that will prosper; instead it will be a country that will explode.

Monday, March 12, 2012

According to liberals it’s $9.00 a month. The current HHS Mandate is based on the rationale that requiring a woman to spend $9.00 a month for contraception is more heinous than violating the religious liberty of a Catholic. Makes you yearn for the old days when buying someones soul required 30 pieces of silver.

But historically liberals have been quick to sell off other peoples liberty on the cheap. In fact one of the core processes of modern liberalism is using the peoples wealth to buy peoples freedom from them.

Liberals use tax money like child molesters use candy. They offer some group a chunk of the federal pie with “no strings attached” because liberals are so caring; and so generous with other peoples money. But once they get you in the government van you learn just what freedoms you’ve given up.

Historically liberals have used government funding of medical care as a rationale to allow government to take away peoples freedom. The Government helps pay for your care so the government can decide what you must do. This began when the government role in medical care was infinitesimal compared to what it is under ObamaCare.

Think motorcycle helmets. Clearly anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is insane. However freedom is not only for what the ruling establishment declares to be “sane”. Especially when the ruling liberal elites think that believing a condom will protect you from AIDS is sane--seasoned citizens will remember when, prior to the AIDS epidemic, condoms were mocked because they were so ineffective.

The liberal establishment declared that the right of motorcyclists to be stupid was null and void because if they got hurt the all benevolent state would have to pay for their medical care. But what about bikers who had their own insurance? Didn’t matter; the government had a finger in the medical care pie so all must bow to its edicts.

Liberals lure innocent Americans into ObamaCare with promises of taxpayer funded largess; a compelling sell in the midst of the Obama recession--Obama backing trial lawyers driving up medical costs with frivolous lawsuits helps close the deal. Then the liberals declare what types of health care are allowed. Don’t look behind the curtain; no death panels there.

You’ve got AIDS acquired due to your promiscuous lifestyle? No problem the government will tax your neighbors until it hurts to cover your insanely high medical bills. After all casual sex is a sacrament and promiscuity a merit badge to the liberal mind.

You’re overweight? Well no hip replacement for you; you’ve been a bad person. Unlike recreational drugs and casual sex there is no excuse for overeating in the liberal universe. And if you’re a smoker you might as well just give up the ghost today.

You’ve worked hard all your life and paid your taxes. Now you’re retired and need a lot of medical care. That may not come to pass since really what are you going to do for society in the future? Liberals rate people, especially non-liberals, based on their value as assessed by liberals. And we know that liberals really like euthanasia. That old people need to fall off the tree and become humus was a liberal talking point back in the last millennia.

Your right to life as “seasoned citizen” will be placed on the scales by the liberal elites and their agents in the government bureaucracy. Your value will be measured not by how hard you worked, what acts of charity you performed, or how responsibly you saved for your golden years, but by how much value the ruling class places on you. The same liberal elites who think that Blacks and Hispanics should get special treatment and be placed ahead of Asians in college admission lines and who have no problem with union thugs using violence against business owners will get to decide what care you “deserve”.

Your freedom to use your own money to pay for your own medical care has been whisked away by liberals. They tax you so you can’t save and they use ObamaCare to be sure you don’t have an option to get the health care you want even if you manage to have two pennies to rub together--and you can’t run to Canada because the Canadian system will be even worse.

Liberals tax you to pay for the health care they insist you have but then they get to decide what the health care will cover. Unlike a regular business where the money is yours until you get what you paid for liberals believe the money was never really yours and what you get to keep of your pay is a gift from the government. They don’t believe that your taxes buy you a seat at the table when decisions are made about your health care.

Liberals buy your freedom with the tax money you pay. And since it’s a law unless 50.01% of politicians agree with you, or 66% if Obama disagrees with you, you’re stuck up a polluted creek without a paddle.

What’s really interesting is that liberals put a very high price tag on their own liberty.

Obama has supported denying medical care to babies who survive an abortion because he was afraid that actually caring for a new born baby might undermine the right to kill your daughter up to the second before her head pops out. In Obama’s calculus a few born babies dying due to lack of medical care is a small price to pay to ensure that his daughters won’t be burdened with a baby.

Similarly liberals believe that their right to view porn on public library computers is far too precious to be compromised by emplacing filters, even in the kids section of the library. Even though those same liberals declare that parents should use those filters to protect their kids rather than requiring the companies that make billions of dollars on internet porn do something to limit children's access.

Liberals declare that they have the freedom to burn flags and blockade Marine recruitment offices. They have the freedom to call any conservative woman a “ “ and any conservative black man an “Oreo”. Liberals inform us that the price of their freedom to express themselves is far more valuable than parents right to expect that prime time TV shows won’t be obscene; that veterans won’t have to put up with being called baby killers; that women shouldn’t be denigrated; that Americans have to watch their flag being burned.

All well and good except that liberals are eager to sell off the freedom of anyone who says things they don’t like.

Condemn homosexuality, but not homosexuals, and you’re guilty of a hate crime--so far only in Canada but liberals here are working to fix that. Blockade an abortion clinic and you’re a monster who should be incarcerated forever.

Want to put up a Nativity scene at Christmas and you’re a Christian jihadist--according to liberals the only bad type of jihadist since for Muslims jihad is a purely spiritual struggle.

Utter a politically incorrect thought--is there even such a thing if one reads the First Amendment as it was written?-- and you’re doomed.

Liberals really do believe in freedom. In a funny way they’re a lot like the Catholics they mock and revile. Catholics believe that true freedom comes from obeying God for God only wishes what’s best. Catholics believe that true freedom does not come from doing evil; a position echoed by Lincoln's belief that there is no right to do that which is wrong.

Liberals believe that true freedom comes from obeying the liberal tenets, whatever they happen to be this week. Liberals declare that being able to do “evil”, i.e. whatever liberals don’t approve of today, is not freedom.

Liberals don’t even realize how bizarre that sounds. After all Catholics, who liberals mock, are doing what they believe the Creator of the entire universe Who died on a cross for them says is good while liberals are doing the same except Bill Maher gets to be god.

And unlike Catholics who aren’t calling for the government to force non-Catholics to stop using contraception liberals insist on establishing a “liberocracy” where all knees must bend to the liberal gospel.

The HHS Mandate is the latest example of how liberals believe that your freedom is worthless unless it conforms to what they believe to be good. If you wish to remain truly free rather than just “free” to be liberal you must stand against the liberal tactic of getting Americans to trade their rights for kickbacks from the federal government of their own hard earned money.

Follow me on Twitter

About Me

i was found under a rock by a wandering tribe of Albanian nuclear physicists. Used as a radioactive source for a series of illegal interstellar rocket tests during my youth i finally escaped by imitating a government bureaucrat and boring my captors into a coma. i made my fortune by suing the developer of the pet rock for copying my personality. Financially independent i settled down to a life of leisure in the American Midwest. Unfortunately i lost my wealth through a bad investment in a biotechnology company which was attempting to develop a mouse which looked like Elvis. Forced to wander the world i started taking odd jobs as a lowly computer programmer.